In this debate, I will attempt to argue that abortion is morally wrong and that fetuses are, in fact, human.

RULES:
1) We both have burden of proof
2) My opponent MUST be pro
3) The voters MUST vote, "Tie" for spelling and grammar and conduct UNLESS the opponent has poor spelling/grammar and conduct (same with me)
4) Voters MUST read the ENTIRE debate BEFORE voting.

Opening arguments from con

1) Adoption is an alternative option that is better because it allows the fetus to live and if the mother is unable to take care of her baby, she doesn't have to have that burden.
2) A fetus does have senses and can feel http://www.birthpsychology.com...3) A fetus can dream, that means that the fetus can think http://www.sciencedaily.com...4) What makes a human fetus less human than a newborn or any other human? Same way with a dog. Is a dog fetus less of a dog than it's parents?

Hello, I would like to thank Con for starting this debate providing me an opportunity to 'play devil's advocate' in a debate for a change.

So that I might win though, I do hope my opponent will not 'play devil's advocate' on his own beliefs for this debate and argue from a religious perspective. By the time this debate is over I hope to show that if you argue from an atheist perspective, you have no ground to stand on for arguing pro-life in a debate like this. I accept the 2 terms my opponent gave that apply to me and from this point on I will sort of be 'role-playing' an atheist pro-abortionist.
-----------------------------------------------------------

My opponent has two cases made for his position. The first one is about adoption as an alternative to abortions for alleviating the burden from newb mothers of caring for there child. The second was a case to show how biologically fetuses are just as human as newborns to grown humans.
My opponent has two cases made for his position. The first one is about adoption as an alternative to abortions for alleviating the burden from newb mothers of caring for there child. The second was a case to show how biologically fetuses are just as human as newborns to grown humans.
What does it matter though how human the fetus is I ask? And as for the proposed alternative to abortion my opponent gave it has one major problem and that is that the child is not dead in that alternative.

And all the children that can DIE at an early age MUST.

Confused as to how I could say that? Take a look at the bigger pitcher and try and soak in what is perhaps the biggest problem our planet faces and that is the problem of overpopulation. http://mwillett.org... by the time this debate is done the population will have grown over 200,000 in spite of war’s in the middle east, famine in numerous countries, and nuclear meltdown/volcanic eruptions/ earthquakes/tsunamis in Japan

Already this population growth is having catastrophic effects like the famine previously mentioned, http://www.asianews.it... . More people means greater food demand than many countries infrastructure and economies can bear. Leading to the kind of civil unrest the gets governments overthrown http://english.ruvr.ru...

Knowing the dire need for eliminating population growth, I ask you all, Are the mother’s who would choose to go through with abortion not in most cases ideal candidates for killing there children anyway? For millions of years our species has survived and advanced by the death of the inferior and the survival and reproduction of the superior examples of the species. Those who would choose to not go through with an abortion but raise there child up, they at the very least show they are emotionally and financially capable of handling doing so. This is a wanted adaptation for our species to pass on to the rest of the population. Those that want to choose abortion could do so for different reasons, like emotional stress from the burden of having this child, of keeping it. Money problems with providing for it. Or perhaps it’s not that they can’t accomplish the task of raising the child allowing it to live if push came to shove but the timing of its coming is one of massive inconvenience and they just don’t want too.

Whatever the case, they have the common theme of showing the parent to be unable to adapt in some way to this situation life provided unless you count escape an adaptation. If escape must be labeled an adaptation it’s not a positive one to have spread through our species.

How can we even think about allowing, much less make it manditory to

continue the life of beings that have no face no history and contributions to the world as of yet who would be the children of people they were inconvenient enough for that they wanted out of birthing them when the globes unchecked growth in population is causing the deaths of millions who do have faces and history’s. And not just any death but the slow death of starvation. Sometimes quicker when there the result of the riots or the wars over our dwindling resources.

Did you know that no matter how little you decide to cut back on using gas, even if everyone across the world was conservative with it together, gas consumption would still go up enough to make the prices go up because the growth in population in regions that are using gas now is adding to it.

To summarize (for those who where not paying atteintion) my points in this debate are...

1)Because of growing over-population of the planet, the deaths of these fetuses that the mothers do no want is virtually manditory to start slowing population growth's progress.

2) The advancement of our species has always been based on the reproduction of those that can adapt, cope with wider variaty of situations, tougher situations. Pregnant women who want abortion in some way cant adapt or cope in some way with delievering what there reproducing.

3) Though my opponent made some vallient arguments that fetuses are indeed human he failed to make any connecting point as to why that should matter. I contend there has been no reason as of now given to us that should make us think that a fetus being human should matter.

4) It is better for the majority of the worlds deaths to be due to abortions than due to famine, and war over resorces or other over-population related problems.

That said this ends my opening argument and I look foward to my opponents response! ;)

Mabye in a real, long, long, long time would I would debate you again after its apparent that you have decided to finish whatever you start on this site. But right now I have no intrest risking waisting my time on debateing you anytime soon.

Thank you to any that read this debate and vote, If I say it was fun I could only be talking about the doodle that didnt work out.

It's strange how even though I know it's logical for a person to use all the time they got before posting there next round, as I often push the 3 day limit myself for the same reasons, I still get parinoid that my opponent is just going to not post another round when there new members and do take there time. It seems like 60% of those I have debated and didnt have there post in by the first day end up just forfieting the rest of the debate. They also show little to no other activity on the site as well.

the fact that you posted at all in the comments reasures me your in the other 40% though.